True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: Criminal Proceeding Quashed

In which it is clearly stated that the police Officer has to question the victim girl, witnesses and contradict the witnesses and record the same. In the present case, the statement of the victim girl is concerned, the investigationofficer stated in the charge sheet that he has contacted her and she confirmed the contents of the complaint given by the complainant. This Court is of the view that the Investigating Officer has to confirm the allegations mentioned in the complaint with the aggrieved person. This Court is of the view that the Officer, who is investigating the case,should record the statement as per the above said provisions. The first duty of the Investigating Officer is to find out the probability and truthfulness of her complaint unless otherwise the complainant’s version appraised by the Investigating Officer with the facts and circumstances of the case. Merely recording the statement as stated by thewitnesses cannot be called as investigation. Investigation includes examination of the witnesses, confronting thewitnesses on the basis of materials collected by the Investigating Officer and also the version of the person who is aggrieved because of the said complaint. Mere reproduction of the complaint without proper examination cannot be called as statement recorded during investigation.

In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866, thiscourt summarized some categories of cases where inherentpower can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings:(i) where it manifestly appears that there is alegal bar against the institution or continuanceof the proceedings;(ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at their face valueand accepted in their entirety do not constitutethe offence alleged;(iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or theevidence adduced clearly

Reference made to Perjury

The court noticed that the tendency of perjury is very much on the increase. Unless the courts come down heavilyupon such persons, the whole judicial process would come to ridicule. The court also observed that chagrined andfrustrated litigants should not be permitted to give vent to their frustration by cheaply invoking jurisdiction of thecriminal court.

And law is explained in regards to IPC 415 and 420 Cheating case.

On a reading of the aforesaid section, it is manifest thatin the definition there are two separate classes of acts whichthe person deceived may be induced to do. In the first class of acts he may be induced fraudulently or dishonestly to deliver property to any person. The second class of acts is the doing or omitting to do anything which the person deceived would not do or omit to do if he were not so deceived. In the first class of cases, the inducing must be fraudulent or dishonest. In the second class of acts, the inducing must be intentional but need not be fraudulent or dishonest. Therefore, it is the intention which is the gist of the offence. To hold a person guilty of cheating it is necessary to show that he had a fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making thepromise. From his mere failure to subsequently keep apromise, one cannot presume that he all along had a culpable intention to break the promise from the beginning.

And the forgery

The following ingredients are essential for commission of the offence under section 467 IPC:1. the document in question so forged;2. the accused who forged it.3. the document is one of the kinds enumerated in the aforementioned section.

when to issue non-bailable warrants for arresting an individual.

Before parting with this appeal, we would like to discuss an issue which is of great public importance, i.e., how andwhen warrants should be issued by the Court? It has come toour notice that in many cases that bailable and non-bailablewarrants are issued casually and mechanically. In the instantcase, the court without properly comprehending the nature of controversy involved and without exhausting the available remedies issued non-bailable warrants.

And…

When non-bailable warrants should be issuedNon-bailable warrant should be issued to bring a person to court when summons of bailable warrants would beunlikely to have the desired result. This could be when:* it is reasonable to believe that the person will not voluntarily appear in court; or* the police authorities are unable to find the person to serve him with a summon; or* it is considered that the person couldharm someone if not placed into custodyimmediately.

As far as possible, if the court is of the opinion that asummon will suffice in getting the appearance of the accused in the court, the summon or the bailable warrants should bepreferred. The warrants either bailable or non-bailable shouldnever be issued without proper scrutiny of facts and complete application of mind, due to the extremely seriousconsequences and ramifications which ensue on issuance ofwarrants. The court must very carefully examine whether theCriminal Complaint or FIR has not been filed with an oblique motive.In complaint cases, at the first instance, the court shoulddirect serving of the summons along with the copy of thecomplaint. If the accused seem to be avoiding the summons,the court, in the second instance should issue bailable warrant.In the third instance, when the court is fullysatisfied that the accused is avoiding the court\022s proceeding intentionally, the process of issuance of the non-bailablewarrant should be resorted to. Personal liberty is paramount,therefore, we caution courts at the first and second instance to refrain from issuing non-bailable warrants.

Learned Counsel would submit that the specific allegations made in the complaint, against the petitioners herein, relate to the demand of dowry attracting theingredients of Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned Counsel would refer to Rule 10, of the A.P. Dowry Prohibition Rules, to contend that since the allegation of demand of dowryagainst respondents 2 to 4 are at the time of the marriage which, even according to the complaint, took place in December 1996 and as the complaint was filed eight years thereafter in December 2004, it was barred by limitation.

And the Shri Ramesh Ranganathan J (as his Lorship was called then) held that,

There is considerable force in the submission of Sri K. Jagdishchandra Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioner that, since Rule 10 of the A.P. Dowry Prohibition Rules prescribes a limitation of one year, the complaint filedeight years after the marriage is barred by limitation. Rule 10 of the A.P. Dowry Prohibition Rules, 1998 provides that any offence under Section 3 and 4 shall be filed before expiry of one year.

Admittedly in the case on hand, the 1st respondent police failed to refer the matter to the concerned District Social Welfare Officer and get a report as to whether any dowry harassment is made by the petitioners.In the absence of the adherence to such Mandatory procedures, offences of Section 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act cannot be imputed.

since the status of the petitioner does not come within the definition of ‘relative’ as envisaged u/s 498A I.P.C., she cannot be proceeded against for the offences committed under the said section.

Moreover,

So far as the Section323/ 406 I.P.C. is concerned, allegations have been specificallylevelled against other accused persons and in that context also thecomplaint petition does not reveal any offence so as to prosecute the petitioner in this present criminal case.

Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh has quashed the proceedings under IPC 498A, just because husband didn’t respond while he was on his personal tour, the knife alleged illicit relationship to her husband. And the Court rightly dust-binned the case as illicit relationship does not attract IPC 498A provisions, even if taken to be true.

it could notbe said that the petitioner who is alleged to have been having anextramarital affair with the husband of the first informant since 2011, would fall within the ambit of “Relative”. Let me assume for themoment that the husband of the first informant has got married with the petitioner in February, 2014. Primafacie, the marriage is invalid. The first marriage is still in subsistence. In such circumstances, the offence under Section 498A could not be said to have been committed.

And, also IPC 494 not applicable on woman,

Section 494cannot be made applicable against the petitioner becauseSection 494 is an offence committed by the husband. If a husband orwife living, marries in any case in which such marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the life of such husband or wife, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. The husband is sought to be prosecuted for the offence under Section 494 of the IPC. The same cannot be made applicable so far as the petitioner before me is concerned.